Posted on 08/01/2022 11:18:39 AM PDT by matt04
The impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision on firearms is reverberating throughout Massachusetts and in particular in Springfield where the Police Department found its decades-old practice of routinely restricting — or even denying — licenses to carry firearms was suddenly unconstitutional.
“With the new changes from the Supreme Court decision, that’s all gone,” said Deputy Police Chief William Cochrane.
...
The concern among lawmakers is that Bruen will chip away at Massachusetts’ gun laws, considered among the toughest in the nation, that have been on the books for decades and longer in some instances. The first law giving the police chief to authority to grant or deny a license to carry dates back to 1906, for example.
“In Massachusetts, we have strong gun laws that save lives, and our license-to-carry statute has been a critical component to ensure public safety,” Healey said in her clarification to police. “I am proud to continue working with state law enforcement partners in vigorously enforcing our gun laws.”
...
The previous policy, adopted in 2019, stated that applicants were required to have “good reason to fear injury” to their person or property before being issued a license to carry. Applicants also had to “articulate a reason to fear injury to himself or his property that diminishes him from the general population. The applicant must identify a specific need, that is, a need above and beyond a general desire to be safe.”
(Excerpt) Read more at masslive.com ...
I just checked their website and the requirement for a non-resident concealed carry permit still requires a good reason. Nazis without the character to admit it.
Wow, that's a long time.
Constitution was written even longer ago. Let's stick with it.
Nope, unless your a criminal on the streets.
In Springfield the “crime” is pretty much contained to the drug gangs. There are parts of town I wouldn’t walk around as an old white guy. I spend a lot of time down town. I don’t feel unsafe, just hungry as most of the lunch spots have gone out of business.
At least, from what I’ve read, MA is not defying SCOTUS by passing new requirements for concealed carry like NY is.
Not yet.
I honestly thought Massachusetts would. I know the case was focused on New York City, but in Massachusetts you had cities like Worcester, Springfield, Boston and a lot of the little suburbs around there play the restriction game. Surprisingly, they basically complied and as of now, they’re not trying to put any new ones in place. That doesn’t mean they won’t in the future.
No, it was always unconstitutional but other Supreme Courts had ignored the Constitution or just made up their own rules.
“With the new changes from the Supreme Court decision, that’s all gone,”
Again, the Supreme Court didn't change the Constitution, they only clarified what is says.
Yes, they were apparently enjoying their role in totalitarian government.
Massachusetts’ gun laws, considered among the toughest in the nation,
= = =
How about a grudge match with CA’s gun laws?
My FOID card expired long ago. No plans to apply for another.
More likely no longer able to shake down applicants to make “Donations” to the Sheriff’s election or “Widows and orphans fund”.
Exactly. If you knew the right people in the cities, you had no issue getting the permit you wanted with the right amount of, persuasion I mean donation, yeah that’s it.
It’s not hard. When you don’t see white people on the street, turn around.
The same is true of my town. I don’t think these guys use the internet for anything but porn. But, the letter in my hand says “restrictions are unenforceable.”
Well….let’s not go crazy now. Of course not,
But, you can get pre-ban magazines all over the place. But you cannot buy a new AR15 in the PR of Mass.
As do I. I feel that Justice Thomas would, if he could. Unfortunately, decisions are themselves 'consensus documents', and he went as far as he could with the other squishes on the court. The court needs to find a good case to strike down the 1934 AND 1968 victim disarmament acts.
I have told this story before...but for those who have not heard it.
I worked on a national virtual team before I retired and one of my co-workers (from North Dakota!) told me his son (who still lived at home at the time) was applying for a job in Springfield. MA and he wanted my opinion since he knew I lived in that general area. (In North Dakota anything within a hundred miles qualified as “local”. :-) )
I told him my opinion of the city (stay the ^%$# away!) but then I gave him practical advice if his son insisted on flying there for an interview.
I told his son to arrive a couple of hours early and spend that time driving in all directions around Springfield to see it for himself.
The kid followed my advice—and then ghosted the interview and flew back home!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.